The Madras High Court Bench here has come to the rescue of a widow, her three minor girl children and aged father-in-law by directing the Panaikudi Panchayat in Tiruchuli Taluk of Virudhunagar district to pay back wages due to her husband (since dead) who was dismissed from service way back in 2007 without following the principles of natural justice.
Justice D. Hariparanthaman passed the order while allowing a writ petition pending in the court for the last five years.
The petition, challenging the order of dismissal, was actually instituted by R. Sivanarayanan who worked as a clerk in the Panchayat.
ADVERTISEMENT
But after his death, his wife R. Indirani, their three children and his father pursued the case in the capacity of being his legal heirs.
The prayer of the original writ petitioner was to quash the dismissal order that was passed without conducting an enquiry into the charges levelled against him and to reinstate him in service with back wages.
However, since he died pending adjudication of the case, the judge directed the local body to pay the back wages alone to the petitioner’s family from the day he was dismissed from service till the day he died.
ADVERTISEMENT
Classic case
“It is a classic case where the third respondent (panchayat president) acted arbitrarily and dismissed the petitioner from service in violation of principles of natural justice. Though allegations were made, no enquiry was held. It is a well settled principle of law that before passing a dismissal order, a charge sheet should be given, explanation should be obtained and regular enquiry should be held,” the judge said.
Resolution
He pointed out that the panchayat had also passed a resolution on April 3, 2007 for dismissing the petitioner from service.
“The reason given in the resolution is shocking. The third respondent states that he was newly elected as president of the panchayat and therefore, he wanted to terminate the services of a person who was appointed in the earlier regime,” the judge added.
He recalled that a decade ago, clerks appointed in village panchayats across the State had expressed apprehension of being terminated from service by newly elected presidents to the local bodies. But allaying their apprehensions, the Rural Development Secretary issued a letter on November 20, 2011 stating that no employee would be dismissed from service without affording a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
Contrary to such assurance, the petitioner in the present case had been dismissed without a full fledged enquiry.
“Hence, it is clear that the third respondent has no regard for rule of law and he dismissed the original petitioner arbitrarily in blatant violation of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and liberty) of the Constitution,” the judge concluded.